Honest Questions About Child Abuse (page 18)

notsurewheretogo

But what has any of this to do with your original question? You asked why we had beef with the WT?

That has been answered. You are determined to apportion the blame of child abuse in JW congregations away from the WT hierarchy.

OUTLAW

So Outlaw or sparrowdown, if you live in Louisiana that might be a place start changing the laws or work with SNAP and their members that are doing that......Blondie

I`m in Canada.....In the Wilderness..

I do appreciate your work with "Snap" though..

But what has any of this to do with your original question? You asked why we had beef with the WT?
That has been answered. You are determined to apportion the blame of child abuse in JW congregations away from the WT hierarchy......notsurewheretogo

Yes he is..

The author of this thread is engaging in a "COVERT"..

"Pro WBT$/JW Pedophile Protection" info-mercial..

Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
COVERT:
1 : not openly shown, engaged in, or avowed : veiled <a covert alliance>
2 : covered over : sheltered

I hope this thread lasts a while longer..

It`s very revealing..

OUTLAW

Again outlaw and sparowdown. you try to over simplify things. lets again take the state of Louisiana.....RO
“Member of the clergy” is any priest, rabbi, duly ordained clerical deacon or minister, Christian Science practitioner, or other similarly situated functionary of a religious organization, except that he is not required to report a confidential communication,
* * *
(c) “Member of the clergy” is any priest, rabbi, duly ordained clerical deacon or minister, Christian Science practitioner, or other similarly situated functionary of a religious organization, except that he is not required to report a confidential communication, as defined in Code of Evidence Article 511, from a person to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of that church,**6 denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hearing confidential communications, and under the discipline or tenets of the church, denomination, or organization has a duty to keep such communications confidential. In that instance, he shall encourage that person to report the allegations to the appropriate authorities in accordance with Article 610.

If the WBT$ followed the law and encouraged people to call the authorities..

WBT$ GB "Rock Star" Pope,Geoffery Jackson`s fat ass ..

Wouldn`t be sitting in front of the Australian Royal Commission..
Image result for Watchtower geoffrey Jackson

You`re avoiding/hiding an inconvenient truth,with subterfuge..

Definition of Subterfuge:
deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.

synonyms:
trickery, intrigue, deviousness, deceit, deception, dishonesty, cheating, duplicity, guile, cunning, craftiness, chicanery, pretense, fraud, fraudulence More

What really happens in Countries with Appropriate Laws?..

Watchtower Hides and Protects Pedophiles ..

Outlaw. Again you're trying to over simplify things. First of all the ARC is a group of politicians and not a court of law. There is no due process as recognized by any government. What evidence was Watchtower able to present other than one expert witnesses that the Commission dismissed off hand because her testimony did not conform to their findings. No cross-examination of any witnesses, no rules of evidence, any response given by Watchtower was immediately dismissed by the commission again because it did not conform to what they wanted.

Second, you keep claiming that Watchtower prevents people from telling the police. Is there any actual evidence of that other than the testimony in the ARC or from other witnesses in other courts? Is there any objective evidence? The reason I say this is because even eyewitness testimony has proven to be so unreliable that even the Illinois Supreme Court has opened up the door that there has to be other evidence in a criminal trial than just an eyewitness testimony. Also, it is so hard to prove a negative especially to people on this forum that don't care what other evidence is given. There is an example that people use to prove how hard it is to prove a negative. Can you prove to me that you never read a book? No, you can't prove that ever because how can you. In similar fashion How do you want watchtower to prove that they never told people not to go to the police?

OrphanCrow

richard: ...other than one expert witnesses that the Commission dismissed off hand because her testimony did not conform to their findings

Earlier you had said that you read all the ARC documents.

What a load of crock - either you didn't read them or you are just stupid.

Applewhite was an idiot without the qualifications to make her any sort of "expert" other than an expert ass kisser for the WT.

Richard Oliver

Please explain to me in the ARC transcript where the due process is? Explain where the cross-examination of witnesses is? Show me where Watchtower was able to present evidence and their own witnesses? In a court of law an expert witness' testimony can be given as much or as little weight as a jury member deems but cannot be and is not just dismissed off hand because that expert witness is paid by one side or the other, that is how expert witnesses work.

Vidiot

sparrowdown - "...WT should suspend all privileges and duties of anyone accused..."

Ah, but how much you wanna bet they'd experience a serious shortage of "qualified" guys to run the Org at the grassroots level if that happened?

I think its a significant factor for their decision to - as Barb Anderson said - change into a predominantly online "e-religion"... less need for that sort of thing, therefore less connection to any potential problems.

OrphanCrow

richard: Please explain to me in the ARC transcript where the due process is? Explain where the cross-examination of witnesses is? Show me where Watchtower was able to present evidence and their own witnesses? In a court of law an expert witness' testimony can be given as much or as little weight as a jury member deems but cannot be and is not just dismissed off hand because that expert witness is paid by one side or the other, that is how expert witnesses work.

Yup. I was right.

Stupid it is, then.

You fail to see the forest for the trees, don't you?

First things first. The "expert" has to really be an expert. You cant put any old idiot on the stand and expect their "testimony" to be accepted. And their testimony has to be relevant.

Applewhite clearly failed to deliver on either of those points.

Yup.

Stupid.

Richard Oliver

So you feel that she is not an expert for what reason. Because she holds a Masters and Ph.D. in Social Work. That she has conducted more that 1800 root cause investigations into institutions and child abuse. That she has worked in 11 countries or regions around the world. That no other expert filed any testimony that contradicted her testimony. Or is it because she did not cow-tow to the ARC counsel of assertions.

BTW. The ARC counsel did not question her ability as an expert witness. They just dismissed her findings off hand.

OrphanCrow

richard: So you feel that she is not an expert for what reason.

This has nothing at all to do with feelings and everything to do with the firing of neurons...not hormones.

And it isn't my neurons that have done the firing. Mine only responded to the brain power of people like Angus Stewart and Peter McClelland, the Australian legal professionals who rejected Applewhite's "expert" status.

You see, Richard...Australia (and a handful of other countries) have higher standards when it comes to making a claim of "expert". The credentials that are waved in front of a court have to come from someplace other than a popcorn factory.

Go ahead...keep defending the Catholic woman who made a fool of herself. It certainly reveals what is firing inside your head. Go ahead...defend her. It reveals who you are more than you know it does

Honest Questions About Child Abuse

Share this